Earlier text: A LIVING CHURCHTHE IMPEACHMENT OF TOBACCO.
By H. Wren
TOBACCO may be impeached of the following “high crimes and misdemeanors,” all of which it can be proved to have often committed, and to be still committing:— It poisons the body. It renders the body unclean. It makes the breath foul. It destroys the clearness and brightness of the countenance. It makes the teeth black. It pollutes the mouth. It pollutes the clothes. It poisons the air and renders it unfit to breathe. It makes the air offensive to the smell. It weakens the intellect. It causes imbecility. It causes insanity. It causes intemperance. It kills more than alcohol. It lessens muscular power. It excites unholy passions. It leads to sin and crime. It ruins the voice. It destroys the fineness of the sense of taste. It destroys the acuteness of the sense of hearing. It impairs and often entirely destroys the eye-sight. It deadens all the finer feelings, whether physical, intellectual, social, or moral. It renders people more liable to contagious diseases. It transmits infectious diseases from those who have handled it to those who use it. It causes premature decay of the whole nature. It causes premature death. It causes many serious maladies, and some that cannot be cured. It causes cancer of the stomach, of the lips, of the tongue, of the cheeks, of the pancreas. It causes apoplexy. It causes paralysis. It causes dyspepsia. It causes consumption. It causes impotency. It causes torpid liver. It causes diarrhea. It causes constipation. It causes asthma. It causes delirium tremens. It causes incurable ulcers of the mouth, throat, lips, and tongue. It causes congestion of the brain. It causes palsy. It causes piles. It causes heart disease. It causes nervousness. It causes vertigo. It causes sore throat. It causes epilepsy. It causes loss of memory. It causes sleeplessness. It causes decay of the “jaw-bone.” It causes neuralgia. It causes something which the doctors call “locomotor ataxia.” It causes rheumatism. It causes something which the doctors call “angina pectoris.” It destroys manliness and resolution. It causes laziness and idleness. It injures the blood. It weakens the stomach. It injures the brain. It prevents the right action of the nerves. It injuriously affects the mucous membrane of the mouth. It causes enlargement of the tonsils. It lessens vitality. It enervates the offspring of those who use it. Its effects are often worse in the children than in the parents. It makes sallow skin and sickly countenances. It stunts the growth of boys and youth. It dwarfs all their powers, physical, intellectual, and moral. It makes them very sick when they begin to use it. It makes boys, and sometimes men, impudent. It causes catarrh. It causes disease of the kidneys. It causes disease of the gums and teeth. It makes men cross and irritable (and some women too). It makes the hands tremble. It curtails the power of endurance. It causes untold pains and suffering. It causes one billion dollars to be worse than thrown away, every year. It costs more than bread in England. It costs eight times as much as bread in the city of Boston, and in many other cities, no doubt. It fills the world with paupers. It causes little children and women to go poorly clad and hungry. It gives Holland one million sallow, sickly people who are there engaged in its manufacture. It exhausts the soil. It diminishes national vigor. It impedes civilization. It impedes Christianity. It undermines the valuable resources of nations. It renders armies susceptible to the diseases of camp-life. It renders them vincible on the field of battle. It disqualifies kings, emperors, presidents, councilors, judges, legislators, ministers, teachers, and parents for the finest comprehension and discharge of the responsibilities resting upon them. It takes from ministers of the gospel that sacred influence that should always radiate from them. It prevents them from attaining the ends for which the ministry was created. It renders them (and others) unfit to be received into the houses of refined families. It renders men unfit to ride in the same car with other people; and lays upon railroad companies the necessity of furnishing them a separate car called the smoker’s car. It does no good. It imparts no real happiness. It does incalculable evil. It causes untold misery, want and wretchedness. It is one of those mighty chains with which Satan enslaves this world and binds it to his chariot. Thank God for the health reform, which saves some from its scourge. But the poor old world loves its chains, and curses those who would set it free. TWO POWERS.
By J. M. Gallemore
There are two great powers in the world, and they are at war with each other. There are good angels, and there are evil ones; and both classes are active in their work,—one trying to lift up fallen man, and lead him in the way of eternal life; the other to debase him, and lead him down to eternal death. These bands are led, one by the Saviour of mankind, the other by man’s greatest adversary,—Satan. Satan, with his evil angels, is powerful; the Son of God, with his good angels, is all-powerful. That Satan and his hosts have great power, witness their miracles performed in the presence of Moses, in turning the rods into serpents, water into blood, etc. We see, also, from Matt. 12:24; Mark 3:22; and Luke 11:15, that Satan is recognized as having great power. For further proof on this point, note the wonders he is performing in our own day, through the agency of so-called spirit mediums. He is certainly powerful, and as his time grows shorter, he will work with still greater power. If we would resist his influence, we must look in faith to one who is mightier than he,—the Saviour, whose appearing we hope soon to behold, as he comes escorted by all the heavenly angels, to reward every man according as his work shall be. Rev. 22:12. The great question for us to decide, is, Who will we have to rule over us? “His servants ye are, to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.” Rom. 6:16. Which, then, of these rival powers will we serve? We cannot serve the Lord and the devil; we cannot divide the affections between them. The great mystery is, that men should try to do this. Why should they desire to give the least service to such a cruel master, whose wages is only death,—eternal death? Why should they choose his yoke of bondage in preference to the easy yoke and light burden of our Lord and Saviour? Why will men, of their own free-will and accord, choose sin and its wages, death, in preference to obedience and an eternal life of happiness in the kingdom of God? Is it not because men are corrupt at heart, and love sin; so that, instead of going to the Fountain that cleanses from all uncleanness, making them new creatures in Christ Jesus, they are led on by the great enemy, and listen to his siren song, unconscious of the power he has over them? We have seen men mesmerized, their wills controlled by the will of another; and thus it seems to be with the unguarded and deluded millions who are led captive by Satan at his will; and so it will continue to be until it is too late, and they are called upon to receive the wages of sin. Men are slaves, in bondage to sin and death, when they might be heirs with the Saviour, and servants of the Most High God, thus enjoying the greatest honor to which man can ever attain. Sad it is to think that such folly exists in the minds of men. Let us who profess to be of the day, be watchful and prayerful, lest the evil one weave his web about us; and when the Son of man comes he find us sleeping, and unprepared to meet him. The times are evil; we are on the enchanted ground, and there is great need of wakefulness, watchfulness, and prayerfulness. LABOR TROUBLES IN EUROPE.
On the 23d of May, 1,000 workingmen in Christiana, Norway, engaged in a riot. The soldiery were called out to restore order, and nine soldiers and several of the mob were injured. An abortive attempt at a Communist demonstration was made at Paris on the same day; but the police, after making several arrests dispersed the crowd. A riot at Barcelona, in Spain proved more serious. Some of the strikers were incensed with their fellow-laborers who had resumed work at decreased wages; and they gathered 1,000 strong before the works, and ordered their fellow-workmen to leave and join the strike. Their demand being refused, they went into the factory, drove the men out, destroyed machinery, and finally set fire to the building in several places. They were preparing to carry out a similar programme in other places, when the civil authorities interfered, but they were powerless to suppress the disorder. “The crowd constantly increased, until finally it assumed the most formidable proportions. Alarm speedily spread to all the other shops, which were immediately closed. The operatives all left their benches, and the military and mounted gendarmes were called out. As soon as they appeared, the operatives dispersed into angry and hostile groups, but no resistance was offered. Upward of fifty of the ring-leaders in the riots were arrested. Meanwhile the fire engines were hard at work, endeavoring to arrest the progress of the flames in the burning factory. The striking workmen were so threatening in their demonstrations that it was found necessary to protect the firemen and to station the military in the streets, avenues, and roads, so as to prevent the operatives in the suburbs from joining those in the city. The Governor of Barcelona and the military authorities report that all is now quiet. Numerous arrests have been made. It has been learned that the workingmen were excited by revolutionary agents and Socialist propagandists. By order of the government the unions and workingmen’s associations have been dissolved.” THE RELIGIOUS CONFLICT IN FRANCE.
The conflict between the French government and the “unauthorized religious confraternities” is progressing. A late paper states that the government is privately imparting instructions to provincial prefects regarding their expulsion. These orders contemplate a strict compliance with the law, but permit no unnecessary harshness. “It is proposed,” says the Paris correspondent of the Methodist, “to force the Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and other church officials, to obey the regulations of the ‘Concordat,’ drawn up by and between Napoleon I. and Pope Pius VII., in 1801, which agreement, or ‘Concordat,’ they have been accustomed to observe as far as it pleased them to do so, and otherwise not. The “confraternities,” indorsed by the bishops, are preparing to test the validity of the act. The Methodist’s Paris correspondent gives the following details upon this subject:— “As far as the Jesuits are concerned, the decree orders the dissolution of their corporation throughout all France and Algeria, according to the terms of the ‘decree of Messidor, Year XII.,’ within three months from to-day. The first decree reads in part, thus: ‘A delay of three months is accorded to the aggregation or association, not authorized, called “of Jesus,” in order to dissolve itself in execution of the laws above cited, and to evacuate the establishments which it occupies upon the surface of the territory of the Republic. This delay will be prolonged until August 31, 1880, for the establishments in which literary or scientific education is given, by the care of this association, to youth. The Ministers of the Interior and Public Worship, and the Keeper of the Seals, and Minister of Justice, are charged with the execution of the present decree,’ etc. The second decree invites the other non-authorized congregations to see to it that they submit to the existing laws, and become authorized. That is the sense of the decree. No attempt will be made by the government (so it is announced) to expel Jesuits of foreign birth. The small number of them—only about 100—and other considerations, have caused the authorities to let them remain. “According to the official census of 1878, prepared under the direction of the Ministers of Public Worship and the Interior and of Justice, there are in France 7,444 males (religieux) and 14,003 females (religieuses) belonging to these unauthorized associations. There are, of these 7,444 religieux and 1,480 Jesuits, living in 56 establishments situated in 41 departments. At Paris there are 123 Jesuits, the largest number in any one city.” “Only a short time since, one of the highest officers of the French episcopacy said at a public ceremonial: ‘Quand on touche aux Jesuites, on touche à l’Eglise toute entière: nous sommes tous Jesuites!’ (When one touches the Jesuits, he strikes at the whole church: we are all Jesuits!) That is very true, indeed; and any people who wish to preserve their liberties, and any government which wishes its power respected, must see to it that the priesthood does not acquire political power among that people, nor have within its control the education of those who are to administer that government. “It may interest you to read a portion of the report of M. Jules Cazot, the Ministre de Justice, and M. Charles Lepère Ministre de l’Intérieur et des Cultes, presented to the president on this subject: ‘Monsieur le Président, it is a principle of our public right (common law) that no religious congregation, either of men or of women, may establish itself in France without a previous authorization. In opposition to these regulations, so clearly stated, a large number of congregations, both male and female, have been formed in France, especially under the second empire, and since the events of 1870. A census taken in 1877 proved the existence of 500 congregations not authorized, comprising nearly 22,000 religieux of both sexes.’ After alluding to the fact that, in 1845, M. Thiers addressed this celebrated ‘interpellation’ to the Guizot Cabinet, which ended in the Chamber of Deputies, almost unanimously, asking the government to apply the existing laws to the congregations not authorized, the report goes on to say that ‘among these congregations non-authorized there is one, much the most important of all, of which it is impossible to misconstrue the individual situation. We speak of the Society of Jesus, which has been interdicted at various epochs, and against which the national sentiment has always been pronounced,’ etc.” The following is from the Interior of May 20, 1880:— “The conflict in France between the government and the organized political conspiracy which calls itself the church, brings out the purpose and animus of the parties. The church has amassed great wealth since the backset which it received from the revolution of ’98 and the first empire; and this it is employing with great shrewdness in its conspiracy for the overthrow of republican institutions. The lines of action are two: 1. To push its creatures into places of responsibility and trust in the government, who are expected to use the civil power thus acquired in the directions both of weakening the government, and of increasing the prerogatives of the clergy; 2. To secure the control of education, and indoctrinate the rising generation with their ecclesiastico-political heresies. They lay especial stress in France on the doctrine that popular government is both impious and absurd; impious, because God has committed his power as governor of the world to the pope; and absurd, because all wisdom, political and religious, comes from above, not from the people. The converse of these doctrines—that is, the principle of private judgment and popular rights—is ‘rebellion’ against God and the rejection of the only true church, and will therefore be punished with eternal torment. “It was abundantly demonstrated years ago that this system was not in any true sense a religious organization—much less Christian—but a political power, having chiefly political and mercenary ends in view. Where it is in close alliance with a despotic government, over a superstitious and ignorant people, it monopolizes nearly all the civil authority. Where it is found among a free people, it is always in conspiracy against their liberties. Religion is to them only a means to an end, a cloak to cover their machinery and purposes. Their success in securing recognition as a true Christian church, from those whose modest claims to be disciples of Christ they scornfully contemn, and whose religious and civil liberties they seek to subvert, is only another line in the strong portrait of the anti-Christ, drawn by Christ himself.” IN conversation with a fellow-traveler upon the cars, the other day, Gen. Garfield is reported to have said:— “The future of our country is a great problem, and, for that matter, so is the future of Europe, and of the whole world. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a very intelligent gentleman in New York City a few days ago. He had just returned from Europe, where he had been traveling for two years, and he was in a despondent state of mind over the impressions he had received while abroad. He detailed these impressions at length to me, and in a way that was well calculated to make a systematic impression. It was the prevailing impression among very many of the thinking men of Europe that society there was being undermined by certain irresistible influences. In the first place, it is honey-combed by wide-spread and still wider spreading infidelity. The Christian religion is no longer a supreme influence over the minds and consciences of the masses. The leaders of thought, the scholars of England, France, and Germany, have popularized unbelief, and in France it has passed into a current remark that only women and children are any longer seen at church. “In the second place, there is great restlessness among the masses in regard to the inequalities of society. Why should the few be so very rich, and the many so very poor? is the burden of their inquiry, and also of conversation one with another. This under-tone of discontent is visibly growing, and is finding expression through channels that are unsettling the foundation stones of the whole social fabric in Europe. Socialism in Germany, Nihilism in Russia, Communism in France, and Chartism in England, were all at work, and the masses were being leavened with these principles. Their aversion to kingcraft and priestcraft borders upon revolution. The whole of Europe is volcanic at this time. Immense standing armies are all that repress the outburst. But while they repress it they afford the grievance on which revolution grows and spreads, and becomes more and more irresistible for the final reckoning. It is believed by many of the most sagacious minds that the day of upheaval is not far off. “But this is not all,” said Gen. Garfield, “that my New York traveler said to me. It is believed in Europe that one of these great historic movements of the Mongolian race, that in the remote past have dispersed their peoples into less densely populated countries than their own, is now preparing. For instance, the Russians, in pressing recently upon the Asiatic borders of their empire, developed by actual reconnaissance a Chinese army, of which they were totally ignorant, two hundred and fifty thousand strong, and armed, too, with all the effective enginery of modern war, including the Krupp guns. These guns had been made by their own skilled workmen, who had been sent to Europe and secretly taught the art, and Prussian officers had drilled their armies in the use of them. “No man knows to-day the strength of the Chinese military establishment. All we see or know of what is going on in China is on the shore edges. It is believed that the skeleton for an army of twenty millions already exists. It is believed, further, that the idea of conquest has once again taken hold of the Chinese mind, and that the great Buddhistic family of Asiatic races can be leagued for not only a wholesale raid upon Europe, but also for a descent upon the Pacific coast of the United States. Such a movement means the possible wiping out of Caucasian civilization. England has mobilized these Asiatics as a defense against Russia's ambition in the East, but, as Count Schouvaloff said in the Berlin conference, what if the Asiatics, taught the art of war, should, like the irresistible Turks, once again look down upon the plains of Europe, bearing upon their banners the legend, ‘We come, we see, we conquer’? “Modern war is now a matter of effective arms, and of a simple and reliable commissariat system. The Mongolian race is capable of great personal prowess. Being fatalists, they dare everything for the end they have in view. Their food is simple, easily supplied, and easily transported. Their endurance of fatigue is proverbial. Once organized and in motion, they could swarm into Russia as irresistibly as the locusts of Egypt, and upon the Pacific coast of this continent as numerous and destructive as the grasshoppers. Once started, where would they stop? Civilization would retire before them as from a plague.” A Chicago paper announces, as a novel method of raising money for church purposes, the following: “The great moral French drama entitled ‘Married Life’ will come off Friday evening of this week at the Baptist church. The dramatic company have made arrangements whereby the net proceeds will be given to the Baptist building fund, and it is hoped that all who feel an interest in the upbuilding of public improvements will be present to give in their mite. The popularity of this play is too well known to give greater praise. At the conclusion of this play one of the most laughable and moral farces ever played will follow, entitled ‘A Regular Fix.’ The whole exercises to be interspersed with some choice instrumental music. At the close of the concert exercises the friends of the pastor are invited to tarry and have an oyster supper and a general good time. The elder and lady will be there to make it pleasant for you.” —It seems that spiritualism has even invaded Bombay. The Christian at Work of May 20, 1880, gives the following account of one of its vagaries: “Spiritual pilgrimages to departed saints have been instituted by Baboo Keshub Chunder Sen and his followers in Bombay. Last month Moses was the chosen saint, and the faithful who wished to converse with the spirit of the prophet were bidden to undergo a week’s preparation, and on the following Sunday to meet ‘on the spiritual Sinai to hold communion with the prophet of the Jewish dispensation.’” —Under the new organization, the German army will be incomparably the strongest military force the world has ever seen. The grand total of effective men will reach two millions. To grasp the idea of such a force it would be best to imagine it in detail—say forty armies of 50,000 men each, or one hundred armies of 20,000 men each. These vast hosts will be armed with weapons many times more effective than those in use twenty years ago. Bismarck is the autocrat of Europe,—of all the world except America. It must distress him to think that now, just as he has reached the pinnacle of almost universal power, the long fingers of death are reaching out for him, and his resignation will be tendered by an authority which will give no heed to the protest of the emperor.—Interior, May 20. —The Catholic Telegraph thinks that “perhaps our Protestant friends will some day see the advantage of placing their state charities under the holy and loving care of the Catholic religious orders.” The Christian at Work thinks that it will probably be about the same time that American mothers will see the advantage of placing their children in the arms of a loving, affectionate bear to be hugged, thus saving them the time and trouble of bestowing their own caresses. A TALK WITH GIRLS AND THEIR MOTHERS.
By Washington Gladden
“But there are girls, too, in the cities and the towns. Do not they deserve to be talked with in a friendly way, as well as the boys? Haven’t you something to say to them?” Thus a chorus of girls and their mothers. That I might have something worth saying, I determined to seek instruction by sending a circular letter to a large number of those who once were girls, but who now are women of experience and reputation, asking them to tell me— “1. What are the most common defects in the training of our girls? “2. What principles of conduct are most important, and what habits most essential, to the development of a useful and noble womanhood?” This circular brought me more than forty letters, and it is upon the truths contained in these letters that this talk will be founded. I only undertake to reflect, in an orderly way, some of the advice of these wise women. I shall give you their words sometimes, and sometimes my own. In the first place, then, girls make a great mistake in being careless about their health. I do not know that they are any more careless than boys; but their habits of life, and especially their habits of dress, are generally more injurious to health than those of boys. The great majority of our girls take much less vigorous exercise in the open air than is good for them; those who can walk three or four miles without exhaustion are exceptions. “It seems to me a mistake,” says one of my correspondents, “that boys and girls should be trained so differently, particularly in regard to out-of-door sports. With a strong love for everything in nature, I remember as a child what a torture it was to be kept always in-doors, in some feminine employment, while my strong brothers (strong on this very account, perhaps) could spend all their leisure time in the open air. I was much interested, years ago, in reading a sketch of Harriet Hosmer’s girlhood. Her father, having lost all his other children by consumption, and finding her delicate, resolved to bring her up as a boy, teaching her all sorts of athletic sports, and thus making her a strong, healthy woman.” The lack of exercise on the part of girls is due, no doubt, in part, to the foolish styles of dress, in which it is impossible for them to be out in rough weather, or to make any considerable muscular exertion. “The lack of warmth in clothing, and the foolish adjustment of what is worn,” is said in one of these letters to be one of the chief causes that produce “the peculiar nervous diseases to which women are subject.” I wish I could make you all understand how great a mistake you make when you sacrifice health, or the physical comfort on which health depends, to appearance or to any other earthly good; when you neglect to provide, by regular exercise and wise care, a good stock of physical vigor for the labors and the burdens of the coming years. Without this foundation, all that you can learn in school, and all that wealth can buy for you, will be worthless. “Intellect in an enfeebled body,” says some one whom I quote from memory, “is like gold in a spent swimmer’s pocket,—it only makes him sink the sooner.” Another great mistake that many of our girls are making, and that their mothers are either encouraging or allowing them to make, is that of spending their time out of school in idleness, or in frivolous amusements, doing no work to speak of, and learning nothing about the practical duties and the serious cares of life. It is not only in the wealthier families that the girls are growing up indolent and unpracticed in household work; indeed, I think that more attention is paid to the industrial training of girls in the wealthiest families, than in the families of mechanics and of people in moderate circumstances, where the mothers are compelled to work hard all the while. “Within the last week,” says one of my correspondents, “I have heard two mothers, worthy women in most respects, say, the first, that her daughter never did any sweeping. ‘Why, if she wants to say to her companions, “I never swept a room in my life,” and takes any comfort in it, let her say it’; and yet that mother is sorrowing much over the short-comings of that very daughter. The other said she would not let her daughter do anything in the kitchen. Poor, deluded woman! She did it all herself, instead.” The habits of indolence and of helplessness that are thus formed are not the greatest evils resulting from this bad practice; the selfishness that it fosters is the worst thing about it. How devoid of conscience, how lacking in all true sense of tenderness, or even of justice, a girl must be, who will thus consent to devote all her time out of school to pleasuring, while her mother is bearing all the heavy burdens of the household! And the foolish way in which mothers themselves sometimes talk about this, even in the presence of their children, is mischievous in the extreme. “Oh, Hattie is so absorbed with her books, or her crayons, or her embroidery, that she takes no interest in household matters, and I do not like to call upon her.” As if the daughter belonged to a superior order of beings, and must not soil her hands or ruffle her temper with necessary house-work! The mother is the drudge; the daughter is the fine lady for whom she toils. No mother who suffers such a state of things as this can preserve the respect of her daughter; and the respect of her daughter no mother can afford to lose. The result of all this is to form in the minds of many girls not only a distaste for labor, but a contempt for it, and a purpose to avoid it as long as they live, by some means or other. There is scarcely one of these forty letters which does not mention this as one of the chief errors in the training of our girls at the present day. It is not universal, but it is altogether too prevalent. And I want to say to you, girls, that if you are allowing yourselves to grow up with such habits of indolence and such notions about work, you are preparing for yourselves a miserable future. “Work,” says one of my letters,—and it is written by a woman who does not need to labor for her own support, and who does enjoy with a keen relish the refinements of life,—“work, which you so plainly showed to be good for our boys, is quite as necessary for our girls.” Closely connected with what has just been said, is the mistake of many girls in making dress the main business of life. I quote now from one of my letters, whose writer has had unusual opportunities for observing the things she describes:— “From the time when the little one can totter to the mirror to see ‘how sweetly she looks in her new hat,’ to the hour when the bride at the altar gives more thought to the arrangement of her train and veil than to the vows she is taking upon herself, too large a share of time and thought is devoted by mothers and daughters to dress.” “I have heard,” writes one of my correspondents, “a vain mother say of her beautiful baby, ‘I am so glad it’s a girl; I can dress her so much finer than I could a boy.’” O woman! woman! to what depths of degradation you have sunk when you can look into the face of a baby lying in your lap,—the face of a child that God has given you to train for the service of earth and the glory of Heaven,—and have such a thought as that find a moment’s lodgment in your mind! The pity of it, the pity of it, that children should ever be given to such women! It is one of the inexorable things of providence. What can such a woman do but destroy the souls of her children? Listen to these strong words of another correspondent:— “From the cradle to the casket, and including them both, the important question is not of the spirit and its destiny, but of the frail house of the soul,— how much money it can be made to represent,—what becomes it, and is it all in the latest fashion? The occasional sight of a young girl simply and girlishly dressed is like a sight of a white rose after a bewildering walk through lines of hollyhocks and sunflowers. It is generally conceded that early tastes leave indelible results in character. What may be prophesied for the future of our girls with their banged, befrizzed hair, jingling ornaments and other fashions, which some one has well characterized as ‘screaming fashions’?” It is not that there is any harm in thinking about dress, or in wishing to be tastefully attired; it is only that personal appearance comes to be in the minds of so many of you the one subject, to which everything else is subordinate. This weakness, if indulged, must belittle and degrade you. I do not think that the girls, or their mothers, are wholly to blame for this absorbing devotion to dress. The vanity of women is stimulated by the foolishness of men. A young woman who is modestly and plainly clad is much less likely to attract the notice of young men than one who is gorgeously arrayed. From bright, intelligent, finely cultured, sensible girls, whose chief adorning is not the adorning of braided hair, or golden ornaments, or of gay clothing, the young men often turn away in quest of some creature glittering in silks and jewelry, with a dull mind and a selfish heart. But I beseech you to remember, girls, that a young man who cares for nothing but “style” in a woman is a young man whose admiration you can well afford to do without. If that is all he cares for in you, you cannot trust his fidelity; when you and your finery have faded, some bird in gayer feathers than you are wearing will easily entice him away from you, and the sacred ties of marriage and parentage will prove no barrier to his wayward fancies. The girl who catches a husband by fine dress, too often finds that the prize she has won is a broken heart. Another mistake that many of our girls are making is in devoting too much of their time to novel-reading. It is mental dissipation of a very dangerous sort; its influence is more insidious than, but I am not sure that it is not quite as fatal to character as, the habitual use of strong drink. Certainly the mental dissipation of novel-reading is vastly more prevalent than the other sort of dissipation, not only in “the best society,” but in the second-best, as well; and five women’s lives are ruined by the one where one life is wrecked by the other. “Ruined,” do I say? Yes; no weaker word tells the whole truth. This intemperate craving for sensational fiction weakens the mental grasp, destroys the love of good reading, and the power of sober and rational thinking, takes away all relish from the realities of life, breeds discontent, and indolence, and selfishness, and makes the one who is addicted to it a weak, frivolous, petulant, miserable being. I see girls all around me in whom these results are working themselves out steadily and fatally.—Washington Gladden, in St. Nicholas. (To be concluded next week.) HOW MARTIN LUTHER WAS CURED.
Ordinarily the great reformer Luther was less liable to doubts and gloom than his friend Melancthon. But he was a man of terrible impetuosity; and when he did fall into a fit of darkness he drove all before him. At one time, when danger threatened, and nothing seemed to prosper in the mighty work he was doing, he became so despondent that his friends were alarmed. He did not sit and mope as other men do when they are melancholy; for Luther was not one of the silent kind. It was this fact that made his mood dreadful. He was like a strong steed running with a broken rein. His strange actions and bitter words led some to fear that his great labors and burdens had shaken his reason. His fellow-reformers and his best friends (some of them rich and powerful ones) shook their heads and said, “We must get Doctor Martin out of the way. He needs rest. Who knows but he’ll say or do something to wreck the whole cause?” This time, however, they were puzzled to know how to manage it. Once they had shut him up a year in Wartburg Castle to save his own life. It seemed absurd enough to think of shutting up Luther to save the reformation; but they must do something. It was hardly safe now, as it usually had been, to let him alone till his grand faith worked itself out of its eclipse. Finally they concluded to try a method common among the old prophets, who often taught and rebuked great men by enigmas and parables. Luther’s wife, the good and gentle Catherine Bora, was taken into confidence, and her love and solicitude for him made her, no doubt, the best person who could have been chosen to administer medicine to the gloomy man’s mind. The next time Luther went to his house, he found359 it silent. To miss his welcome at the door was a surprise to him, and changed the current of his thoughts a little. Men in sour humors will say there is nothing bright, but they never like to be taken at their word. He went through the rooms seeing no one, till he reached the parlor, and there his wife sat dressed in deep mourning, and weeping as if her heart would break. “Why, Kate, what is the matter?” asked Luther, now thoroughly startled. No answer but sobs and tears. “Is the baby dead?”—thinking of his youngest child, who had been ailing. “No; worse than that, a great deal worse—I thought you knew;” and then a fresh burst of tears. “Kate—wife! what in the world can you mean? Tell me quick!” exclaimed the astonished reformer. “O husband, hasn’t the awful news reached you? Haven’t you heard that our Heavenly Father is dead, and his cause in the world has all gone to ruin?” The horrified expression on Luther’s face changed at once. He stood a moment looking at his wife, and then he began to shake with laughter. He laughed as loud, and as long, and as heartily, as he had ever laughed in his life—and that is saying much, for naturally Martin was a very merry-hearted man. “Ah, Kate, Kate, my good wife,” he said presently, “I read your riddle. God is not dead, but I have acted as though he were. You have taught me a good lesson.” And Martin Luther never forgot the lesson his wife taught him when she showed him his black fancies in their own absurd funeral dress.—Selected. ONLY one day to bear the strain
Of living, and to battle with the pain. Only one day to satisfy
With food and covering, as the hours slip by. Only one day; to-morrow’s care,
To-morrow, if it come, itself shall bear. Only one day! then waste it not
In futile plannings where the Lord is not. Only one day God gives to me
At once; oh, may I use it faithfully! Only one day to serve my King,
And to his feet some wandering soul to bring. Only one day to fight the fight
Of faith, and vindicate my Saviour’s might. Only one day, maybe, to sing
On earth the praises of my Saviour King. Earth’s day dies down; Lord, lift my eyes
Unto the glories of the heavenlies. One perfect day awaits me there,
Nightless and shadowless beyond compare. The golden day thyself hast won;
Thy voice its music, and thy face its sun. Spring to thy dawn, O day to be!
That I may see my Lord who loveth me.